Site Navigation

Site Mobile Navigation

Baghdad Bureau Chief Answers Readers’ Questions on Iraq

BAGHDAD — Thanks to everyone who wrote, especially Jimmy from Dallas who asked if those of us working here “realize you are read.” We do, even if Iraq has receded so far from the center of public attention in the United States — as I noted about President Obama’s State of the Union address — that it can sometimes feel as if it has been forgotten, overshadowed by economic troubles at home, the renewed focus on Afghanistan and all the turmoil elsewhere in the world.

I have been struck more than once when I am home — in Washington — by how little Iraq comes up in day-to-day conversations anymore, when it once devoured so much. So it’s nice to know there are many who care deeply about Iraq’s fate and pay attention – whatever the rationale for the war, which continues to be contentious, as several questions/comments made very clear.

“What have we gained with this country’s lost lives and treasures?” bearsvilleboy asked, raising again the question of the weapons of mass destruction that the Bush administration used to justify the American invasion in 2003. That’s an excellent question, but not one for me alone to answer.

Personally, I don’t think the answer is knowable yet. At least it is still debatable, and many people in Iraq and elsewhere have very strong views one way or another. That is part of what makes the Baghdad Bureau a compelling, challenging place to work. The answer, I’m certain, will be debated for a long time to come.

Q.

Liberty for All from Austin, Tex., asks: Do you see the uprisings in North Africa and the Middle East (Tunisia, Lebanon, Egypt, Yemen) as having an effect on Iraqi stability and the political machinations there?

A.

Arguably, Iraqis now have the kind of political freedom that protesters in Tunisia and Egypt have poured into the streets to demand. They can — and did — vote for their representatives in truly competitive elections on the provincial and national level. Despite continued violence and hardship, they live, work and speak in ways that would have been unimaginable under Saddam Hussein’s rule.

Iraq’s televisions and newspapers have covered the regional tumult extensively, which has not been the case in more autocratic regimes in the neighborhood. Many here have seen in the protests warnings for the country’s new democracy, as John Leland wrote last week. In several instances, Iraqis have already protested dismal services, especially the persistent lack of electricity. When a suicide bomber attacked a funeral in Baghdad on Thursday, killing 48, people stoned the police and army troops who responded. The nascent opposition party in the northern Kurdish region has called for protests to change the government there, though to little effect.

There is no question that Iraq’s people and leaders are taking note. Practically every interview or meeting I’ve had since the events in Egypt began has been conducted in the glow of televisions showing the protests.

He has yet to nominate ministers of defense, interior and national security and instead assumed responsibility for those ministries for the time being, raising fears among opponents that he intends to impose an authoritarian control over the country’s security apparatus. Either way, Mr. Maliki doesn’t seem to be in a hurry to make the appointments.

The Parliament, or Council of Representatives, officially opened last summer and nominated Mr. Maliki for a second term as prime minister in November. Its 325 new members have largely devoted their initial meetings to jockeying over positions in the leadership and on various committees. They have begun reviewing the budget, sending it back to the Ministry of Finance for revisions, but they have yet to vote on any significant new legislation, including proposals dealing with contentious issues like the distribution of oil revenues or the fate of Kirkuk and other disputed territories. How effective the new body will be remains to be seen. If nothing else, it has become a forum for political debate.

One reason for that has been the emergence of the bloc led by the cleric Moktada al-Sadr, which won 40 of the 325 seats and proved crucial to Mr. Maliki’s re-election. The Sadrists, as they are known, are highly disciplined populists with genuine grass-roots support among Shiites. While Mr. Sadr’s militia once openly fought American and Iraqi troops, his political followers say they are committed to a peaceful, democratic process. Some doubt that. Their presence in the Parliament will certainly have an effect on decisions like the future American military role, which they oppose. Mr. Sadr himself returned to a rapturous welcome in January after three years of self-exile in Iran, vowing to support the government and to better serve the Iraqi people. A couple of weeks later he quietly and inscrutably returned to Iran, leaving his own role in Iraq’s nascent democracy uncertain and even some of his own supporters wondering.

This will be one of the most important and potentially divisive issues of the coming months. I wouldn’t blame anyone for being confounded by the statements of various officials and observers, many of them contradictory. The fact is that neither the Obama administration nor Mr. Maliki’s government has so far decided, at least publicly, what role the American military will have in Iraq in the future, if any. The leaders’ own advisers seem divided on the matter.

The security agreement President George W. Bush negotiated with Mr. Maliki over 2008 set a deadline to withdraw all American troops from Iraq’s cities by June 30, 2009, and from the country entirely by Dec. 31, 2011. The withdrawal from the cities happened on schedule — with a little fudging on municipal boundaries to allow bases in Mosul, Kirkuk and Baghdad, for example — and American officials and commanders say the final withdrawal will also happen on schedule.

The schedule for withdrawing the remaining troops has not yet been made public, but it is expected to begin in the spring and be in full swing by August, with as few as 25,000 troops left by August, as I heard recently. In the State of the Union address, Mr. Obama again stated that the remainder of the troops would withdraw as planned, which would seem to rule out a future role for the American military, but not entirely.

My colleagues and I recently outlined some possibilities and the political difficulties both he and Mr. Maliki face as they grapple with the 2011 deadline. Iraq’s security forces, while larger and increasingly confident, still require significant training and equipping, as many officials have noted. Keeping any significant number of American troops in Iraq to do that — even in a purely advisory capacity — will require an extension of the current security agreement, the negotiation a new agreement of some sort, or some more fudging. How that unfolds will be a major story this year.

Of the dozens of bases the American military has already left, large and small, almost all have been taken over by Iraqi army or police units. Many were military facilities during Saddam Hussein’s rule, and they are where they are for security and logistical reasons. Contractors working for the State Department beyond 2011 are likely to take over some, including much of the sprawling Victory Base Complex at Baghdad International Airport, but most will simply transfer to Iraq’s police and military, who will ultimately decide how to array their forces as the security situation dictates.

Baghdad, like the rest of the country, has become unquestionably safer than the worst years of sectarian carnage, from 2005 to 2007. Is it safe enough for a foreigner — a term that is more appropriate than Westerner since people come from the East, too — to walk and drive safely through the streets? Many, in fact, do.

I watched Iraq’s soccer match against Australia in the Asia Cup on Jan. 22 in a crowded café in the center of the city as the sun set. Being out after dark was once unthinkable — for anyone. Iraq lost, but it was a great match and I enjoyed watching with Iraqis, sharing their ultimate disappointment (no offense to Australia’s fans). All of us in the Baghdad Bureau get out extensively in the city and beyond and very rarely meet outright hostility, let alone threats. On the contrary, the overwhelming majority of Iraqis I’ve met are friendly and hospitable. That said, most foreigners travel with bodyguards and take other security precautions, reflecting the unfortunate but very real threat from terrorists and criminals. So, too, do most Iraqi officials and businessmen, it should be noted.

The Islamic State of Iraq, an iteration of Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, and other armed insurgent groups remain lethal, as a recent spike in bombings proved yet again, even if they are not the existential threat to Iraq’s government they once were. In various statements, the Islamic State of Iraq has railed against the government and its supporters as apostates and justified its attacks accordingly, including those against civilians. The intent of the attacks is to topple the government, sow sectarian tensions and perhaps just create chaos as the Americans withdraw.

Much like the American invasion itself, the answer depends on one’s point of view.

Iraq is not likely to collapse when the last American troops withdraw, just as it didn’t when more than 100,000 left after the peak of the American military’s involvement in 2008 under the “surge” ordered by President Bush. Iraq’s security forces are able to maintain a degree of control.

The government functions, though it is hobbled by inefficiency and corruption. The country’s embrace of true democracy remains hesitant and inconsistent. The independence of the judiciary remains uncertain and largely untested, as do the Parliament and most other institutions.

The Kurds, with their autonomous region in northern Iraq, say that are committed to a unified Iraq, but the disputes between them and the central government over territory and natural resources still threaten to pull the country apart. The sectarian violence that divided and isolated Shiites and Sunnis, Arabs and Kurds, Christians and other minority groups, has yet to heal fully. A consistent theme that I hear from Iraqis — officials and ordinary people — is that the country needs time, perhaps a new generation, to put the past behind them.

Q.

Mramble from Beaver, Pa. asks: How would you rate your newspaper’s coverage of the situation in Iraq: very good, just O.K., wish I knew more, sub par, worthless? This is a sincere question as those of us back here have no idea how the gathering and dissemination of information was done. Thank you.

A.

I’m biased, of course, but I would rate the newspaper’s coverage of Iraq as excellent. From the beginning of the war in 2003 to this day, the newspaper has maintained a bureau with a rotating staff of correspondents — as many as three, four or five at a time, as well as photographers and videographers — even as other news organizations steadily pulled out. It created the blog that became At War, overseen by Stephen Farrell.

None of this is to claim our coverage is always perfect or that we have covered every aspect of the country as much as some would like, even ourselves. Other news organizations have done exemplary work that I wish I’d done. There is always more that can be done. Gathering information in Iraq is neither easy nor straightforward. Even basic facts are elusive, often debated. We are all assisted now by five Iraqi reporters and translators and 14 contributors in cities across the country. A couple of you asked questions that warrant looking into, and we’ve already made inquiries as a result.

Q.

Jessica Bruckert of Chapel Hill, N.C., asked something that has been on my mind as I look back on my time here. (I’ll leave her first question about adapting to the digital era to my bosses, who are far more qualified to answer. Not in my lane, as the American military says.) What has been my most memorable story, or episode?

A.

It’s impossible to choose one, but what I have found most engaging is the part of Iraq that defies the perception of a place of unrelenting violence and chaos: the richness of its art, culture and history, from the tradition of barbecuing fish on the banks of the Tigris to the, for me, surprising innovations in painting and sculpture that Iraq’s artists made in the middle of the 20th century, a legacy now in danger of neglect.

What's Next

About

At War is a reported blog from Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq and other conflicts in the post-9/11 era. The New York Times's award-winning team provides insight — and answers questions — about combatants on the faultlines, and civilians caught in the middle.

Behind the Curtain

Remembering a Fallen Colleague

The New York Times has established an education fund for the children of Sultan Munadi, an Afghan journalist who was slain in Afghanistan in 2009. Learn more about him and how you can contribute here. »

Archive

Recent Posts

Marine Corps Captain Calum Rammhe, a longtime marathon runner, ran seven marathons on seven continents in seven days to raise money for a charity that supports wounded Marines and their families. It also let him reflect on why running is more than a hobby for him. Read more…